Zimmerman jury bound by evidence, not racial considerations

I struggled to derive clarity from several of Professor Terri Jett's assertions in her July 12 column "Zimmerman trial and race relations." One of her most puzzling, potentially troublesome declarations was, "the verdict will be ... representational of how far we have come ...." Is Jett implying that a guilty verdict would "represent" that we've come far in race relations, while a not guilty verdict would "represent" that we've made little progress? But that would ignore the crucial fact that the jury is duty and honor-bound to reach a verdict based solely upon the evidence, which Jett does not have at her command and could (according to several independent experts who have been in the courtroom from the beginning) at least conceivably support an acquittal.

In any event, what would tell us, unmistakably, "how far we have come in race relations" is how the African-American communities across the nation would react to a verdict of acquittal. The violent reaction suggested by some black voices in various media, for which law enforcement authorities across the land are quietly preparing, would "represent" a repudiation of the rule of law and a refusal to be governed by the judicial system and its elaborate safeguards for the rights of all people, one of the bedrock foundations of our republic and a civilized society.

Fritz King

Indianapolis

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Zimmerman jury bound by evidence, not racial considerations

I struggled to derive clarity from several of Professor Terri Jett's assertions in her July 12 column 'Zimmerman trial and race relations.' One of her most puzzling, potentially troublesome